Full Judgment
Pareed Pillay, J.
1. Tahsildar, Peermade deposited Rs. 28,822/- as compensation due to the legal heirs of deceased Nallu. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kottayam apportioned the amount to the deceased's father, mother and widow as Rs. 12,322/-, Rs. 11,500/- and 5,000/- respectively. Parents of the deceased challenge the apportionment on the ground that the widow is not entitled to any amount as she has remarried.
2. The only question that arises for consideration is whether re-marriage by the widow would disentitle her from claiming the amount of compensation.
3. At the time when the Commissioner passed the order widow of the deceased was not remarried. The sworn statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded by the Commissioner. They did not have a case that their son's wife is not entitled to the apportioned award amount on account of her remarriage. There is no evidence that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner or at any time before it the first respondent had remarried. It is only before this Court that the appellants have raised the contention that the first respondent remarried on February 25, 1986. As no such plea was taken before the Commissioner, appellants cannot raise it before this Court in appeal.
4. That apart, even assuming that first respondent has remarried, she cannot be disentitled of the compensation amount due to her as a dependent of her deceased husband. As a widow she is entitled to the compensation being the legal heir of the deceased husband. There is no-provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act that after remarriage widow is not entitled to compensation. At the time of accident first respondent's status as the wife of the deceased was not denied and so on his death she became one of his legal heirs. Contention of the appellants that on remarriage first respondent is debarred from claiming compensation as a dependent is debarred from claiming compensation as a dependent of the deceased husband is without any merit as there is no provision under the Act that after remarriage widow of the deceased would not be regarded as a dependent. Under the Act, a Widow is a legal heir of her husband. Compensation due to her as a legal heir under the Act cannot be deprived to her merely on the ground that she has entered into a marriage subsequently. Under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 widow is a dependent of the deceased husband so long as she is not remarried. No such restricted definition is found under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As a widow is a dependent under the Act and as that status is not lost on account of her remarriage, first respondent cannot be denied of the compensation even if it is assumed that she has married subsequently.
Commissioner's order is unassailable. M.F.A. is dismissed.